Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clark Circle


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   redirect to Clark, New Jersey.  MBisanz  talk 21:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Clark Circle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I seem to recall years ago that someone with a fetish for rotaries wrote tons of articles on them, generally saying nothing but what roads branch off them. For some reason most of them are still here, despite the fact that they're useless. This one doesn't even exist anymore; we literally have an article on an intersection. An intersection of no relevance. At best this should be redirected to the List of traffic circles in New Jersey page (which, for some reason, exists) as it has as much info as this sad excuse for an encyclopedia article. Delete -R. fiend (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge / Redirect to Clark, New Jersey We have articles for all sorts of things that I don't care about; The question is notability based on coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. We have more than a few articles for buildings, objects and people that no longer exist. The sourced content should be relocated so that it's added to the article for Clark, New Jersey, where the circle is / was located, with a main article reference to List of traffic circles in New Jersey in the article for Clark. This merge / redirect is the same standard that has worked effectively at Flemington, New Jersey and White Horse, New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your idea of "effective" and mine are quite different. The articles you mentioned look ridiculous, covering the standard topics covered by articles on cities and then, out of nowhere, going into the minutiae of a traffic intersection, covering it as if it were the site of a holy pilgrimage, when in fact, it is a circle of asphalt, the likes of which exist all over the world, and which are of no relevance to anyone but rotary-fetishists. The White Horse, New Jersey article is particularly embarrassing, as the only information it has is on 2 years of census data, and then an entire section on a small section of roadway. Nothing on culture, history, politics, etc., but a section on a completely unremarkable rotary. Honestly, I'd rather see this terrible article kept where no one will see it then merged, where it can pollute another article with its irrelevance. The "sources" on this are laughable as well: local news stories about some future public works projects. Perhaps every time my local newspaper runs a story about repaving jobs in the works, I'll add it to the city's article as well. hat would make for some great reading, eh? This is just plain terrible material. -R. fiend (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the topic is encyclopedic and covered by reliable and verifiable sources. What you think is "ridiculous" is irrelevant, no more than your fetish for poorly drawn Charles Schulz characters, such as the long-defunct and poorly sourced Shermy. Alansohn (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge / Redirect to Clark, New Jersey. It will marginally enhance the Transportation section of that article, and redirects are cheap. Accurizer (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I fail to see how a merge to Clark will improve that article as it would simply add trivia. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do not approve of the nominator's misuse of "literally" or their edit-warring elsewhere, but this is not a notable subject, and there is no need for a redirect. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Whpq & User:Drmies. Davey 2010   Talk  08:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.